It was hard to hear myself think over all the snoring the media was doing during the Bush years.

I don't know what planet you were on, but on Earth the media was banging the war drum, and then, around 2003 as people started thinking about the 2004 election, they started hammering on Bush and did not let up for five years. They jumped on the anti-war bandwagon, politicized the climate change debate, captured and highlighted even the most trivial gaffe, took every opportunity to take statements out of context and twist them, and ranted and blamed everything possible on him, up to and including the weather.

like swift boat?

The hammering started later, when basically all his TOTALLY voluntary policies were failing.

Failing. Like the "Surge" you mean. That was the biggest rant of all for a couple of years. "We have lost the war! We need to retreat! The surge has failed! My pussy hurts!!"

Yes, this is just like swift boat, and also like the battering that Republicans gave Bill Clinton toward the end of his term, and the battering Democrats gave G.H.W. Bush at the end of his term. Except it's been getting progressively worse, and this is the point where I'd say it got wholly out of hand -- there seemed to be a unprecedented level of hatred, spite, and outright slander and libel, at the expense of the country as a whole, and it lasted for a full five years on full throttle. It's old hat now, because they lowered the bar, but I was dismayed when they were comparing a sitting U.S. president to Hitler, portraying him as a vampire sucking the blood out of the Statue of Liberty, and calling him a "war criminal". ALL of that shit was politically motivated, created by U.S. Democrats so they could get back in office and pursue their socio-economic agenda. It hurt the U.S. greatly, because it was supported to a degree by the media, and those ideas were propagated across the globe by other leftists, who also wanted to see the U.S. on a more leftist path and whose lemming herds were only too eager to believe (and used to doing it).

That's how we ended up with 20-something asshats in places like this spouting off nonsense like, "U.S. is biggest exporter of terrorism on planet! War criminals!" and such, and believing it as truisms. However... when the Barack the Magic Negro too office, Abra-ca-fuckin-daba, IT STOPPED. All these things were suddenly no big deal.

While he had led the world to believe he would do the opposite, he continued every single thing that Bush was doing and made any number of them worse. People say, "Well, he didn't invade two countries...", but he didn't have a 9/11 either. He actually ramped up Bush's Global War on Terror (while changing its name to make sound nicer). Instead of bringing people to justice, he murdered them without even the military justice he had said was unfair, and he spread a CIA octopus all over the Middle East, engaging in covert operations of military scale on an unprecedented scale.

Yet, after five years of foaming-at-the-mouth Democrat anger and vitriol, when it became clear than Obama was content to let the economic crisis last his entire term so he could leverage it to rationalize unprecedented deficit spending, and the Tea Party movement got under way, Democrats (Nancy Pelosi and her "astro turf" come to mind) acted "aghast: and "appalled" at the "anger", "lack of civility", and "disrespect". Their hypocrisy is what was truly appalling, and what was most nauseating was that it had begin to become clear that most them actually believed this shit. To a degree not seen outside communist or fascist states, Democrats had turned into a pack of lemmings, being led and controlled by populist demagoguery, catalyzed by market-selective news media and social media.

This is the future. We have seen the enemy and they are we. Enlightenment thinking and real liberalism are dead. Humanity is sliding once again into mindless, authoritarian collectivism. Sparta conquers Athens.

You know I don't post here anymore because I got sick of the constant left vs right bullshit, but I became a US citizen a short while ago so I figured I should start giving a shit about the dysfunctional political system here.

IMHO Romney lost for 2 basic reasons:

1. He alienated a large proportion of the electorate with his 47% comments
2. He had to appeal to the lunatic fringe of the Republican party to get nominated, this alienated more people in important demographics (ethnic minorities, women etc.)

All Romney had to do to win was provide a coherent plan to run the economy better than Obama and not alienate a large proportion of the electorate. He failed on both counts.

I fully support the idea of enterprise and self reliance, but I can't support the lunatic fringe religious right with their outdated and frankly ridiculous social agenda. The Republicans are making themselves irrelevant. Rove, Limbaugh, Palin etc. are a liability and need to be purged. Perhaps the Republican party should split, an economically conservative but socially liberal party would be far more electable._________________In the land of the free you are only one party away from dictatorship at any time.

1. He alienated a large proportion of the electorate with his 47% comments

This is very unlikely. The 47% he was referring to weren't going to vote for him. Period. His statements are also accurate. In the course of a campaign, you can't convince everyone to vote for you. That's what he was referring to. You've got ~47% of the vote, and you can't get ~47% of the vote. The remaining ~6% are the group every candidate tries to convince. I certainly hope you don't think any given Democrat cares about the 47% they'll never get.

secretcorporation wrote:

2. He had to appeal to the lunatic fringe of the Republican party to get nominated, this alienated more people in important demographics (ethnic minorities, women etc.)

He's a moderate. He received (IIRC) 2 million fewer votes than McCain. Unless I heard incorrectly, Obama received 10 million fewer votes than his first election._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

You completely missed the point. If Romney had simply said: "47% of the electorate are hardened democrats and we're wasting our time and money going after them; we need to concentrate our efforts on floating voters" that would be one thing. In fact he does much more than that. He talks disparagingly about his "47%" - half the population of which he aspires to be president. He sneers at what he imagines to be an attitude of "entitlement". He was shamelessly playing to an audience who believe that poor people only have themselves to blame for being poor, and that the rich can just cut them loose with no obligation while they continue to exploit their power and privilege to get even richer.

This is very unlikely. The 47% he was referring to weren't going to vote for him. Period. His statements are also accurate. In the course of a campaign, you can't convince everyone to vote for you. That's what he was referring to. You've got ~47% of the vote, and you can't get ~47% of the vote. The remaining ~6% are the group every candidate tries to convince. I certainly hope you don't think any given Democrat cares about the 47% they'll never get.

in what way were they accurate? Let's dissect this mofo wants and for all. To begin, let's get the quote.

Not President Romney wrote:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

There are a couple of claims in the statement and we will look at each separately. I will work under the assumption that the 47% is referring to the same group throughout (that is, it doesn't change with the various statements) and that group is defined by those who pay no income tax. The claims in the statement are the following.

1) 47% of people pay no taxes.
2) They want handouts.
3) They will vote Obama.
4) He's not going to worry about those people.

4) is true, since it is Romney's statement about Romney's worries (I will assume he isn't lying about his own desires and thoughts). 1) is apparently true as well (look it up). Let's look at the other two. To assess these two claims, we should figure out who the 47% are, and I will basically parrot the numbers found in this fact check page. Not because I particularly believe that page, but because it has numbers that don't seem wildly off (so, fudge them if you like, the argument remains the same).

Quote:

According to 2011 data from the Tax Policy Center, more than half of the filing units not paying income taxes are those with incomes less than $16,812 per year. Nearly a third - 29.2 percent - of those paying no income taxes are tax filers earning between $16,812 and $33,542, and 12.8 percent are those with incomes between $33,542 and $59,486. In other words, the poor are least likely to pay federal income taxes, but many middle-class families are also exempt. Smaller but significant numbers of the higher-income earners are also exempt: The same data shows that in 2011, 78,000 tax filers with incomes between $211,000 and $533,000 paid no income taxes; 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million paid no income taxes, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million paid no income taxes.

Overall, according to the Tax Policy Center, "of the 38 million tax units made nontaxable by the addition of tax expenditures, 44 percent are moved off the tax rolls by elderly tax benefits and another 30 percent by credits for children and the working poor."

Moreover, only 18.1 percent of American households paid neither federal income taxes nor payroll taxes in 2011, says the Tax Policy Center. Of that 18.1 percent, 10.3 percent were elderly and 6.9 percent were non-elderly households earning less than $20,000 year, which include low-income families and students. About one in 20 is non-elderly with income over $20,000.

The main points: a lot of that 47% is the poor, but a lot is not. Of the poor, a lot are "transient poor". In particular, the elderly, students and the young, all are part of that group but likely not another point in their lives (elderly in the past, students in the future). I was once part of the 47%, sucking hard on the govt teat when I was a student (university education is heavily subsidized in canada, even for students paying full fees. scholarships etc all come from the govt so that is additional), as were you likely, but I bleed tax now.

So, do they all want handouts? Meh. that's a complicated claim. the old do, but they feel they paid their share of taxes. Students do, but they will pay taxes. Some of the poor will be on govt handouts most of their lives. They probably feel entitled to handouts. However, will they all vote Obama? Some of the poorest states went to Romney, so that claim is hard to assess.

Thus, it seems that the 47% break up into the chronically poor, the transient poor consisting of the young, students and elderly, and the rich. None of those groups scream mostly democrat to me, with the exception of the chronically poor. However, even that group is suspect (poor states love Romney!). So, in short, his remarks were at least 47% bullshit.

Romney got caught doing the same sort of thing Obama got caught doing: talking disparagingly about the opposition in a private fundraising event. The opposition made the most of it, in both cases. (Remember Obama's "clinging to their bibles and guns" remark?)

It's one of many factors, but not "the reason" he wasn't elected. This is a complex scenario, with hundreds, if not thousands, of equally or more salient factors working for and against._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

I remember Obama talking sympathetically about hardship in run-down areas where jobs are hard to come by and market forces seem to offer no hope of regeneration. He went on to say that, in these circumstances, it's not surprising if some people cling to guns and religion. He also said that not everyone in a poor neighbourhood is like this.

Obama is the guy who sees some shipwrecked castaways on a desert island and wonders what he can do to help - even if they're not natural democrats. Romney is the captain of a luxury liner who blames the feckless poor for their own sorry predicament and, to top it all, fires a broadside as he sails on past, leaving them forgotten in his wake.

Yes, poor Chocolate Jesus Obama's remarks were taken out of context, and Evil Satan Mitt Romney's were not. You've got it all figured out, mcgruff. _________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

Sounds like he called something blue, which was light blue. But you don't like him, think of it as light green, and conclude he is obviously lying._________________lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

Sounds like he called something blue, which was light blue. But you don't like him, think of it as light green, and conclude he is obviously lying.

I don't like him. You are right about that.

But, it seems, much of the 47% likely votes for him, as I tried to show. I think I was reasonably convincing. But I can't imagine showing contempt for your electorate is a good strategy. Romney later admitted that. Though I am sure at some point he retracted admitting that. Then admitted it again. Then retracted.

That's the point: contempt. He wasn't simply discussing demographics, as all politicians have to do. Listen to his tone of voice, particularly the way he says "entitled". He was deliberately hitting the buttons of his audience and quite possibly expressing his own firm opinions too although, as you say, it's hard to tell with Romney. These crass and malevolent ideas about the poor were a wake up call for a potential Romney presidency.

That's the point: contempt. He wasn't simply discussing demographics, as all politicians have to do. Listen to his tone of voice, particularly the way he says "entitled". He was deliberately hitting the buttons of his audience and quite possibly expressing his own firm opinions too although, as you say, it's hard to tell with Romney. These crass and malevolent ideas about the poor were a wake up call for a potential Romney presidency.

I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think he despises such people, but he was being a slimey politician and trying to convince those people he was.

The deceptions was that, in context, his "my job is not to worry about those people", it's clear that he was talking about his campaign. He was saying, "I can't waste resources trying to convince these people."

As to showing disdain for the entitlement mentality, people should show disdain for it._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

The deceptions was that, in context, his "my job is not to worry about those people", it's clear that he was talking about his campaign. He was saying, "I can't waste resources trying to convince these people."

As to showing disdain for the entitlement mentality, people should show disdain for it.

but, as I explained, many people in that group don't have that mentality. Surely you were once in that group as I was (presumably you have a university degree)?

Obama is the guy who sees some shipwrecked castaways on a desert island and wonders what he can do to help - even if they're not natural democrats. Romney is the captain of a luxury liner who blames the feckless poor for their own sorry predicament and, to top it all, fires a broadside as he sails on past, leaving them forgotten in his wake.

The deceptions was that, in context, his "my job is not to worry about those people", it's clear that he was talking about his campaign. He was saying, "I can't waste resources trying to convince these people."

As to showing disdain for the entitlement mentality, people should show disdain for it.

but, as I explained, many people in that group don't have that mentality. Surely you were once in that group as I was (presumably you have a university degree)?

What group? Part of the problem is that he conflates and blurs lines, and another part of the problem is that the people reporting about it do the same. Before you know it, you've got Democrat ads where they're equating what he said to an attack on soldiers, retired people, and police officers.

At any rate, it's just one small issue and a tiny part of the big picture. With a race this close, one could argue that any part of that big picture was "the reason Romney lost" (or "the reason Obama won")._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

What about Bain's record of loading massive debts onto struggling companies and raiding pensions funds? Could that maybe have created some of the financial hardship he dismisses with a sneer as "entitlement"?

The Romney economy, as best as anyone can tell, was supposed to be more trickle-down crap. Tax cuts for the rich who don't need the money. Spending cuts for the poor who do. Yay!

How do you sell such an odious idea? Easy. You ignore systemic issues which create poverty and blame the victims. You brand them as feckless, lazy and irresponsible. You sneer at "an imaginary culture of entitlement" loudly and often. If you're Romney's VP, you follow the poisonous ramblings of Ayn Rand who believed that the poor are worthless scum who don't even deserve to live.

What about Bain's record of loading massive debts onto struggling companies and raiding pensions funds? Could that maybe have created some of the financial hardship he dismisses with a sneer as "entitlement"?

The Romney economy, as best as anyone can tell, was supposed to be more trickle-down crap. Tax cuts for the rich who don't need the money. Spending cuts for the poor who do. Yay!

How do you sell such an odious idea? Easy. You ignore systemic issues which create poverty and blame the victims. You brand them as feckless, lazy and irresponsible. You sneer at "an imaginary culture of entitlement" loudly and often. If you're Romney's VP, you follow the poisonous ramblings of Ayn Rand who believed that the poor are worthless scum who don't even deserve to live.

lol_________________At the heart of the durability of mass schooling is a brilliantly designed power fragmentation system which distributes decision-making so widely among so many different warring interests that large-scale change is impossible to those without a codebook.

So now you're calling him a Scot with a small penis? We wouldn't be projecting again, now would we? (Good to see you can have an adult conversation, by the way.)_________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before

But, it seems, much of the 47% likely votes for him, as I tried to show.

So, of the 47% who will never vote for a Republican, much of them likely voted for him. Interesting.

He doesn't know what you're talking about, because he never listened to what Romney actually said -- only what they twisted it into (in much the same way many conservatives were led to believe Obama's "clinging to their bibles and guns" comment was an indication he was going to 'come take their guns' or make abortion a casual, easily available thing)._________________Deja Moo: the feeling that you've heard this bull before